On his birthday, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin devoted three hours to literature. His guests were all famous writers and conversation centered on just about everything at once - the affairs of the creative union, the Khodorkovsky case, etc. What didn't they discuss? Prose writer Alexander Kabakov, who attended the tea party, can answer this question. Here's what he had to say:
When I was invited to meet Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, I didn't see any reason not to accept the offer. All of those who decided to come seemed to know why they were coming. I thought this meeting of writers with a top official was an attempt at discussing serious things. Yet, the conversation was dominated by personal issues and economic problems - about writers' lives, the Peredelkino community and the economic hardships of the Russian PEN centre... I have absolutely nothing to do with this. I'm not a member of any writers' union. I have never lived and will never live in Peredelkino. As an onlooker, I was surprised that my colleagues had come to discuss their own daily issues with someone of Putin's status.
Mr Putin listened attentively, jotted some things down and sincerely wanted to get to the bottom of the problems. Yet, economic issues always take time. As a result, they took up the entire meeting, which lasted for three hours, and three out of the ten writers didn't get a word in. There was simply no time left for them. The Prime Minister had other meetings on his busy schedule. After three hours, he apologised and left. I can understand him very well, though.
My colleagues, on the other hand, I had a hard time understanding. I don't think a writer should talk about himself or his class, but about his audience. The writer's problem is the reader's problem. That's what I would've told Mr Putin. I wouldn't talk about dachas, book trade or librarianship, but about the poverty of our readers. They feel humiliated and they stop reading because of that. If there are no readers, there won't be any writers, because, after all, we don't write for each other. When and how will this change? This is what I wanted to ask the man who is in charge of our economy. Can we hope that Russia will stop being a poor country in the foreseeable future? The communist system gave us poverty for 75 years and we still can't seem to get rid of it...
After 20 years, we haven't overcome the consequences of Soviet government. I guess this probably hasn't been enough time. Theft is gaining the upper hand. Needless to say, it didn't appear just yesterday. I don't mind if some citizens have golden yachts, of course, but in this case a medical nurse or a minor office worker must at least have enough money for her or his daily needs.
However, the conversation focused on narrow group interests. A few words were said about topical political events. Alexander Arkhangelsky asked Mr Putin about the Mikhail Khodorkovsky case and his reaction to Alexander Podrabinek's article. I have my own opinion about this. I don't think that people who are obviously not a threat to society should be kept behind bars, no matter what they are accused of. If Khodorkovsky were released, both society and the government itself would gain from it. I believe that a pardon should be issued in the Khodorkovsky case. The Prime Minister did mention some formal obstacles though - any accused person should formally ask for a pardon, which logically implies that he has pleaded guilty. But this is really not the case. We should all try to find a way out of this predicament.
As for Podrabinek, I think that his article was tactless. It's important to distinguish the "veterans" of the CPSU and the KGB from the veterans who threw themselves under tanks. Gunners from anti-retreat units were not the same as those who were freezing and dying in the front ranks. Veterans are worlds apart. It goes without saying that the tone of the article was defiant, but responding to it like Nashi did...
In general, everything is already clear about the Nashi movement. Their actions are nothing more than patriotic hooliganism.
It's hard to say whether a writer's opinion is really interesting and in touch with the masses. Literature has ceased to be what it was during the perestroika, Soviet times, and before the revolution. It has become a marginal activity. Usually, literature plays an enormous role in a restricted society. Today, there are other forms of public response. Electronic communications are also continuing to develop. This is why literature has become part of the entertainment industry, both simple and stylistically refined.
I'd like to say a few words about dialogue between an artist and the government at this point. I don't understand why it is considered inappropriate to attend such meetings, as some people believe. Needless to say, there are cases when dialogue with the government is impossible and there is simply nothing to talk about. That is how I felt during the Soviet times. But the situation is different these days. The Prime Minister once visited the PEN centre and made a very positive impression even though he had just quit the KGB. I didn't attend this meeting but I did see Mr Putin at the book fair where he and Jacques Chirac were meeting with writers. Not too long ago, Mr Putin also met with some young authors. I've heard that Zakhar Prilepin was among them. Some people say vaguely that he turned down the invitation but I'm not sure what really happened.
Overall, to attend the meeting or not is not a question for me. There is only one case in which I would not want to communicate with the government- if it harassed writers for what they've written. I mean that in terms of literature, not politics, economics or anything else. Suppose someone wrote a book and was exiled for that. In this case, dialogue is simply out of the question. I would certainly not talk to such a government, but things are different now. I think if they really wanted to shut us down, they wouldn't have invited us to speak out.
Yevgeny Belzhelarsky